JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. The present appeal has been filed against the Judgment/Award dated 31.05.2013 passed in M.V. Claim Case No.54/2010 by Principle District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Giridih (Jharkhand) where claimants had been granted compensation of Rs.3,31,000/- with 9% interest, from the date of filing of the present case. It has been submitted by the parties that Awarded amount has already been paid to the claimants with interest and claimants accept that they had received the compensation amount. The son of the claimants, namely, Basarat Ansari was going on Motorcycle bearing registration No.JH-11-B-9986 at about 3:30 PM on 27.06.2010 in the evening, at Pandey Bandh near village Kusmaria, P.S. Sariya (Bagodar), District-Giridih, a Tata Magic passenger vehicle bearing registration No.JH-02K-9993 coming from opposite side dashed the Motorcycle, which resulted in death of son of the claimants on the spot for which an F.I.R. had also been lodged, regarding the occurrence, bearing Bagodar (Sariya) P.S. Case No.134/10 for the offences under Sections 279, 304A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending vehicle. The claim petition had been filed claiming that the deceased was aged about 19 years unmarried boy having income of Rs.6,000/- per month from the profession of tailoring. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2, who are owner of the offending vehicle had appeared and opposed the prayer on the ground that the claim made by the claimants are exorbitant. The incident had also been denied. Opposite party No.3, who is insurance company, had filed written statement taking technical plea but the accident had not been denied. Opposite party No.4 is Noor Taj Mohammad, who is owner of the Hero Honda Passion Plus motorcycle upon which the deceased was riding had also accepted the accident. On the basis of pleading of the parties, following issues had been framed by the Claim Tribunal. i. Is the application of the claimants maintainable in the present form? ii. Whether there is valid cause of action for the present claim suit? iii. Whether the deceased Late Basarat Ansari, aged about 19 years s/o Basir Ansari died while driving motorcycle No.JH-11B-9986 due to dashing of his motorcycle by another vehicle Tata Magic Passenger Vehicle No.JH-02K-9993 from opposite direction on 27.06.2010 i.e. head on collision? iv. ii. Whether there is valid cause of action for the present claim suit? iii. Whether the deceased Late Basarat Ansari, aged about 19 years s/o Basir Ansari died while driving motorcycle No.JH-11B-9986 due to dashing of his motorcycle by another vehicle Tata Magic Passenger Vehicle No.JH-02K-9993 from opposite direction on 27.06.2010 i.e. head on collision? iv. Whether it is a case of contributory negligence of both drivers of the vehicles i.e. Motorcycle No.JH-11B-9986 and Tata Magic No.JH-02K-9993? v. Whether owners of both the vehicles possessed all vehicular papers and drivers of both the vehicles possessed valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? vi. Whether both the accidented vehicles were validly insured at the time of accident? vii. Whether the amount of compensation if any paid by insurer is recoverable from owner of vehicle, due to violations of terms and conditions of policy of Insurance? viii. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so to what extent and from whom? The present appeal had been filed by the claimants raising issue that the income of the deceased was Rs.6,000/- per month. The Claim Tribunal had wrongly negated the income and had considered the same as Rs.3,000/- per month. The second point had been taken that consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, which had to be granted as per Pranay Sethi Case (Infra), had been denied by the Claim Tribunal. The factum of accident and the entitlement of the claimant had not been disputed by the respondents. The finding given in favour of the claimants had been accepted by the respondents and accordingly the awarded amount had been paid to the claimants. The factual aspect has to be determined by this Court regarding the income of the deceased. The age of the deceased was 19 years is also not in dispute. The plaintiff had produced four oral witnesses in support of the income of the deceased. CW-1-Hakik Ansrai, who is uncle of the deceased has stated in his chief that deceased was employed with Amjad Ansari as Assistant tailor and was receiving Rs.6,000/- as salary. He has further stated that he used to receive salary and as such he was aware regarding quantum of the salary. In cross examination he had reiterated his statement said in chief. CW-2 Md. He has further stated that he used to receive salary and as such he was aware regarding quantum of the salary. In cross examination he had reiterated his statement said in chief. CW-2 Md. Islam has also stated regarding the income of Rs.6,000/- as he used to go to the shop where deceased was working as a tailor. CW-3 Amjad Ansari, who is employer has clearly stated that the deceased was working under him as a tailor and he used to pay Rs.6,000/- salary to the deceased. In cross examination he had reiterated statement made in chief. CW-4-Basir Ansari, who is father of the deceased and the claimant has asserted that the income of the deceased was Rs.6,000/- per month and that was the only income available to the family of the deceased. No documentary evidence whatsoever has been produced regarding income. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Shivakumar M. vrs. Managing Director, Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation reported in 2017 (5) SCC 79 from which para-5 is quoted hereunder: “No doubt, there was no evidence available with regard to the income of the appellant but there is no dispute on the fact that he was a painter by profession. The accident happened in the year 2013 when he was living in Bangalore, Karnataka. For a casual worker, who goes from house to house and place to place doing his painting work it is difficult to get any evidence, since there is no employer. He does his daily work, sometimes piece-rated work as well. That is why he made a moderate self-estimation of his income of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,500/-” Referring the above paragraph, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that a moderate self-estimation normally should be accepted by the courts while considering the claim petition under Motor Vehicle Act. Learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company has seriously disputed the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. It has been submitted that there is no documentary evidence regarding the income. The witnesses are interested witnesses, who are claiming exorbitant income of the deceased, as in a small town Rs.6,000/- per month salary is not acceptable. From the discussion above, it appears that there is an oral evidence to the extent that deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. It has been submitted that there is no documentary evidence regarding the income. The witnesses are interested witnesses, who are claiming exorbitant income of the deceased, as in a small town Rs.6,000/- per month salary is not acceptable. From the discussion above, it appears that there is an oral evidence to the extent that deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. This oral evidence has not been negated by either any other oral evidence or in cross examination or by producing any other documentary evidence. As there is oral evidence and further the income Rs.6,000/- per month appears to be reasonable, this Court accepts the same and accordingly held that the Tribunal was wrong in accepting the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and accordingly, it is held that it should be Rs.6,000/- per month. So far as loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral charge are concerned. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in 2017 (4) T.A.C. 673 and it has been submitted that the methodology of calculation has been formulated in a formula and it should be acted upon. Further, so far as loss of consortium is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants has further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in 2018 4 T.A.C. 345 SCC from which para-8.7 is quoted hereunder: 8.7- A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various head under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal, parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’, and ‘filial consortium’. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse, Rajesh and Ors. V. Rajbir Singh and Ors., (2013) 9 S.C.C. 54 : 2013 (3) T.A.C. 679. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse, Rajesh and Ors. V. Rajbir Singh and Ors., (2013) 9 S.C.C. 54 : 2013 (3) T.A.C. 679. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, corporation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.” [BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (5th ed. 1979)] Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.” Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony to the parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world over have recognized that the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. The Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. Parental Consortium is awarded to children on this count [Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh and Ors. v. Sohi Ram and Ors., 2017 (4) R.LW. 3368 (Raj.); Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Rita Rana and Anr. Parental Consortium is awarded to children on this count [Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh and Ors. v. Sohi Ram and Ors., 2017 (4) R.LW. 3368 (Raj.); Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Rita Rana and Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar and 6 Ors., 2014 (3) U.C. 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman and Others v. Susheela Chand Choudhary and Ors., (1996) 3 Kant. L.J. 570 (DB). However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under ‘Loss of Consortium’ as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of Filial Consortium. On the basis of above judgment, it has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that claimants are entitled to get component consortium under the head of filial consortium as awarded in above judgment. Further, loss of funeral charge and loss of Estate as per the amount quantified in the Pranay Sethi Case (supra). Learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company has opposed the prayer and has stated that at the time of death, the judgment of Pranay Sethi Case (supra) was not available and the decision had been taken by the Claim Tribunal as per the existing formula which is not wrong. Subsequently, judgment given by the Apex Court cannot be ground for interfering with the quantum awarded by the Claim Tribunal. Further it has been argued that being parents they are not entitled for any compensation under the head loss of Estate. The Apex Court has given multiplication formula in the decision of Pranay Sethi case (supra). The compensation has also been quantified under the different heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral charge and loss of Estate. From the above discussion, this Court holds that the claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The quantum of compensation has to be calculated by applying multiplication of 18 and taking monthly income is Rs.6,000/-. From the above discussion, this Court holds that the claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The quantum of compensation has to be calculated by applying multiplication of 18 and taking monthly income is Rs.6,000/-. Applying the formula as proponed by the Apex Court in the Pranay Sethi Case (supra), the amount of compensation is calculated as follows: Age of the deceased 19 years Yearly income (6,000 X 12) Rs.72,000/- (Future Prospects) 50% of Rs.72,000/ - Rs.36,000/- Loss of earning per year Rs.1,08,000/- 50% deduction towards family contribution (50% of Rs.1,08,000/-) Rs.54,000/- Multiplier of 18 as deceased was aged about 19 years (unmarried male) Rs.54,000/- X 18 Rs.9,72,000/- Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total 10,42,000/- The Tribunal had granted compensation of Rs.3,31,000/-. This Court has calculated the compensation as Rs,10,42,000/-, as such compensation amount has been enhanced by Rs. 7,11,000/- and as such compensation of Rs.7,11,000/- shall be paid to the claimants within three months from today. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that interest should be granted from the date of this order as the amount assessed by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.3,31,000/- had already been paid to the claimants by the insurance company. In view of the above submission, the enhanced amount of Rs. 7,11,000/- shall carry @ 9% interest from the date of filing of the present appeal. This appeal is allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated herein above.